solution, we have printed under each section what laws will be repealed, and a full and complete discussion of the reasons why. Mr. VINSON. You have been very frank and candid in stating that the objective of the bill is to have less statutory control over the Department than there is today. That is in accordance with the modern trend of thought, to have more power in one man than in legislative bodies. I would want no better opportunity to offer as support of this statement, as exhibit A, than the proposed bill because the proposed bill does exactly that. It takes the Congress out of the picture, where we had rules and regulations enacted into statutes, and repeals a great many of them and vests complete control of the Department of the Army in the hands of the Secretary, except in a limited number of places. Mr. KILDAY. Of course, if there is any law we are going to write it, so let us get back to it section by section and see what part we will take. Mr. SHORT. Mr. Chairman. Your whole purpose, though, in this bill is really to clarify and simplify. General COLLINS. And to make more flexible. I would say we have two major objectives in this bill. Mr. Vinson pointed out one of them yesterday: To make clear and unmistakable the fact that the civilian has control of the Army. Mr. VINSON. That the military has control of the army? General COLLINS. No, sir. I must, with all due respect to the Chairman, disagree that the military people in the Army have tried to control it to the exclusion of the civil leaders of our Government. I would just like for the record to categorically deny that that is the case. I respectfully disagree with the chairman. Mr. VINSON. Yes, sir. General COLLINS. Yes, sir. The military in the Army are subservient and have been subservient to the civil authorities not only of the Department of the Army but of the Government generally, and fully support that principle in our heart and soul and have fought to preserve that principle. Mr. SHORT. No members of this committee are bothering you too much. Mr. PRICE. General, you must have had some experience in recent years to cause you to come in here and request this type of legislation. Have you been handicapped in any way under the old organization or old plan? General COLLINS. To some extent; yes, sir. To some extent we have been. Mr. PRICE. If you could give us any examples. General COLLINS. Well, for example, strictly speaking, under the law certain duties are prescribed in very minute detail for the Quartermaster General. We found during the war that it was really necessary to transfer certain functions to another branch, that is, another technical branch. We were able to do that under the War Powers Act when the war was on. Now this would give the Secretary of the Army that authority. Mr. SHORT. You want wartime powers in peacetime, don't you? Secretary GRAY. No, sir. General COLLINS. No, sir. Mr. PRICE. Aren't you looking for more efficient Mr. SHORT. Why, yes; you do. You want wartime powers in peacetime, don't you? General COLLINS. No, sir. Mr. PRICE. Mr. Secretary, do you feel that under the plan you are suggesting now you would be able to operate more efficiently and economically, too? Secretary GRAY. I think we could. But let me develop the point you are making, sir. Now we are still under the War Powers Act. When the War Powers Act expires, we will go back to the operation of the statutes which existed before the passage of the War Powers Act. And as I pointed out yesterday, sir-I think you were out of the room at the time-if the War Powers Act expired today there are certain of these statutory functions which would revert. As an example, the Ordnance Department now procures motor vehicles. If the War Powers Act expired today, we would revert to the old statute which prescribes that another agency procure motor vehicles. Mr. SHORT. What is wrong with that? Secretary GRAY. Well, we feel, sir, that the head of the Department should be able to make the determination in matters of that sort, as to which agency is better able to procure or perform certain functions. And I point out that the other sister services are not by and large subject to such restrictions in the allocation of functions within their departments. It is not true at all in the Air Force, and it is true to a very limited extent in the Navy. Mr. PRICE. What power was granted under the first War Powers Act? Secretary GRAY. I beg your pardon? Mr. PRICE. What authority was granted under the first War Powers Act? Secretary GRAY. Well, I may oversimplify it, but I would say the War Powers Act gives all the authority in the world. There is no restriction at all. Mr. VINSON. And you want in peacetime practically the same flexibility that you have got under the War Powers Act? Secretary GRAY. Well, this bill Mr. VINSON. And that is the purpose of the bill? Secretary GRAY. This bill is not nearly as broad as the War Powers Act. Mr. VINSON. I know it is not. But you are trying to get in peacetime almost the same flexibility that you had under the War Powers Act. Mr. KILDAY. May I suggest to the committee that we are not going to be able to get together with a discussion of this kind as to the overall effect of the act. I think we ought to get down to examining what they are asking for, section by section, and then decide how much, if any, of it we are going to give them. I think we will make some progress that way. We were on section 102 when we adjourned yesterday. I think we had completed 102. TEXT OF SECTION 103, "PERSONNEL OF OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY" Mr. BLANDFORD (reading): SECTION 103. Members of the Army and civilian officers and employees in or under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Army may be assigned to, or detailed in, the offices of the Secretary, the Under Secretary, and the Assistant Secretaries of the Army, under such regulations, and in such numbers, grades, and ratings, as the Secretary of the Army may prescribe. EXPLANATION AND DISCUSSION OF SECTION 103, "PERSONNEL OF OFFICE OF SECRETARY" Colonel BAYA (reading): It is believed that the Secretary of the Army now has, under his general authority discussed in the comment on section 101 of this bill, the authority——— Mr. VINSON. That is on page 25? Colonel BAYA. I am reading on page 25 of the bluebook. Colonel BAYA (reading): It is believed that the Secretary of the Army now has, under his general authority discussed in the comment on section 101 of this bill, the authority stated in this section, which, in any case, is and will continue to be subject to any limitations imposed by appropriation acts, other laws, or orders of the President or the Secretary of Defense. This provision is designed to remove any doubt as to the Secretary's power to make such details as he thinks proper to his own office and to the offices of his principal assistants. The provision quoted in paragraph 3, which will be repealed by this bill, contains a similar statement of authority; but it refers only to officers and civilian employees "from the branches engaged in procurement." That provision has not been construed as a limitation on the general authority of the Secretary; and for many years he has had on duty in his office and in the office of his principal assistants, officers, and civilian employees who did not come from the branches engaged in procurement. Mr. KILDAY. Why isn't that just an inherent power in the Secretary? Secretary GRAY. It probably is, Mr. Chairman. But this old law which did limit it-I don't know whether it was a broadening or limitation, but did refer to people from the branches engaged in procurement-indicates that there may be some doubt unless that specifically is repealed. I don't think there should be any limitation as to the type of officer assigned to duties in the Secretary's office or the offices of the Under Secretary or the Assistant Secretaries. There is some doubt arising out of that old provision as to some limitation on the type of officer which might be assigned. We feel that it would be clearer to give the specific grant. Mr. COLE. Is that the only statutory authority of the Secretary of the Army to detail people in the Army, that contained in the act of 1916 which relates to persons in the branches engaged in procurement? Colonel BAYA. Under existing law that is the only one I have seen, except one that was put in the Officer Personnel Act of 1947 with respect to general officers. It has all been handled under the constitutional powers of the President as Commander in Chief, to tell an officer of the Army when to go and when to come, and so on. The Secretary of War Mr. SHORT. Except in time of war. Mr. SHORT. Except in time of war. Mr. SHORT. At all times. Colonel BAYA. To military duties. The courts have held that the Secretary of War is presumed to act by the direction of the President. Mr. SHORT. Well Colonel BAYA. He is acting as an extension of the President's person when he issues an order to an officer to go here or to go there. Mr. SHORT. You never had a conflict between the Secretary of War and the Commander in Chief on this particular thing, have you? Colonel BAYA. No, sir. Mr. SHORT. Why do you want it in here? General COLLINS. This particular old provision, though, is a limitation and, unless you just want to repeal this, and then not say anything about what the authority of the Secretary is. This is an instance in which we are writing into the law or suggesting that the Congress write into law an authority that the Congress gives to the Secretary. Mr. SHORT. You are limiting your own freedom then? General COLLINS. To that extent-no; we are really not limiting it but we are clarifying it. Mr. KILDAY. Under section 101 (d) of this bill you can assign anywhere without limitation, including the office of the Secretary or Assistant Colonel BAYA. Section 101 (d) applies to members of the Army. This section 103 includes civilian employees, also. If I may say one thing, sir, in constructing this bill, where there was a provision of existing law on the books, in general, we attempted to put some new provision in the bill that would replace that old provision. Now I think that if this provision shown on page 25, the old law, is simply repealed, it would be unnecessary to put in section 103 in this bill, but since the old law was on the books we attempted to put something down in place of the old law. Mr. KILDAY. Do you know the history of the old law, why it was limited to procurement officers? Wasn't there some provision that there had to be civilians engaged in procurement or something of that kind? Colonel BAYA. It came about as a result of an act that amended the National Defense Act of 1920, when there was assigned by the Congress a specific duty to the Assistant Secretary of War to handle procurement matters. That was an assignment of duties to him, independent of the Secretary of War. And in order to set up his office, they put into that act a provision that members of the Army and civilian employees from the branches engaged in procurement would be on duty in his office. It was probably unnecessary in those days. But it was in connection with a specific assignment by statute fixing procurement responsibilities in the only Assistant Secretary that the Secretary of War had at that time. That is the history of the old law. Mr. KILDAY. I think this section is pretty clear. Mr. VINSON. I just want to get a little information on how large it is going to be. Of course, there is no telling how large it is going to be. Now, Mr. Secretary, how many officers and of what rank have you assigned to your office? Secretary GRAY. In my office there are approximately 100. I don't have the ranks. Mr. VINSON. All right. Then how many officers assignedSecretary GRAY. May I say, to my office which includes those of the Under Secretary and the two Assistant Secretaries. Mr. VINSON. Then the Secretary, the Under Secretary, and the Assistant Secretaries have approximately 100 officers detailed to them? Secretary GRAY. That is right, sir. Mr. VINSON. And the grades run from that of second lieutenant on up? Secretary GRAY. That is right, sir. Mr. VINSON. Now of course you could build it up as the work of the office requires. Secretary GRAY. Yes, sir. Mr. VINSON. Now here is another thing that I want to make a general comment about. My examination of the records discloses that there are probably more officers in the Pentagon in the three services today than at any time in recent years, except immediately after VJ-day. I looked up the other day and I found that in 1947 when the Navy had about 600,000 men they had 2,900 officers in Washington city. Now with a Navy of about 400,000 men it has 2,300 officers in Washington city. Now there cannot be any doubt that in all three services you have today more officers than you have had in proportion to the number of troops and men you have in the field than ever before in the history of the three services. Secretary GRAY. Yes, sir. May I point out Mr. VINSON. Isn't that correct? Secretary GRAY. Yes, sir. May I point out there is one thing that has been added that we did not have before, Mr. Chairman. Mr. VINSON. I know Secretary GRAY. Many of these hundred officers I referred to that are charged to the Secretary of the Army and his principal civilian assistants are engaged in board and committee work which has arisen out of unification. Mr. VINSON. That is right. And the unification has brought about placing more officers in Washington city than ever before in the history of the three Departments because you have more ad hoc committees in operation than ever before in the history of the Government; isn't that correct? Secretary GRAY. I expect the number would reflect that. When you say unification brought it about, I would say unification came as a result of the war. But let me point this out, also, Mr. Chairman. We are not in a normal peacetime period. Mr. VINSON. I understand that. I didn't check up on the Army, on account of your occupational duties. But I did check up to see how they are bringing officers here that serve on these ad hoc committees, and which is necessary and which I am not complaining about. I am just merely stating the fact. Secretary GRAY. There are a good many serving on those committees; yes, sir. Mr. VINSON. Now you could have under this blanket authority here as many officers in the three civilian offices as you deem necessary to administer it. There is no limitation at all. It is just in the conscience of a Secretary as to how many he will have, whom he will bring, and all that. Secretary GRAY. This bill does not create anything new in that respect, Mr. Chairman. Mr. VINSON. I understand that. Not a bit. The mere fact there has not been some limitation in the past is no justification there should not be a limitation in the future. 60266-50-No. 187- -5 |